Where do they allege this? I didn’t see anything akin to this while looking over the filing, albeit it I am at work and not able to give it a rigorous read right now.
I’m also not seeing how this:
A worker need only send a “task” (i.e., request
via Meta’s internal system) to a Meta engineer with an explanation that they need access to
WhatsApp messages for their job
lines up with this:
Meta has kept the circle on its fraud small
The first claim makes it sound widely accessible to staff and engineers, while the other claims aggressive obfuscation.
I’m interested in the claims made, but until the case goes to discovery or the whistleblower releases information, there is very little here. 4 paragraphs of vague claims in a 50 page filing is just not enough. I don’t use Meta products because I have no trust in them, but I don’t want to rely on confirmation bias like I see all throughout that reddit thread you linked.
Because
A) the evidence suggests there is no backdoor
B) that is the claim being made, there is always a burden of proof when making a claim; otherwise, the claim is utterly meaningless.
If people would think critically for two seconds, they would realise that WhatsApp has a vested interest in E2EE because it saves them the massive PITA of being on the hook for moderating those messages. Using E2EE with poor metadata privacy gives Meta the absolute best of both worlds; they collect massive swaths of data to target advertisements without any liability for the messages sent on their platform.
There are also a lot of leaked and/or public police documents and court proceedings detailing how messages either have not been retrieved from Meta, have been retried via unencrypted iCloud/Google Drive backups, or have been obtained directly on the device. It is not reasonable to assume this is all a facade to give the impression that WhatsApp uses E2EE.
You understand that courts don’t ask people to prove negatives not because of some exceptional standard they have specific to the court system but because doing so is logically incoherent in any context, right?
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If you make a claim, you have the burden of proof. This isn’t law, it’s simple logic.
Speaking only for myself- I do not use WhatsApp because their claims are not proven, and I will not use it (except where forced) unless they prove those claims. But I also would need proof of the opposite to claim it as fact.
It’s such a silly document it borders on being a skit.
Of the 50 or so pages, only about 200 words are a non-technical explanation of how this thing is intended to work, based on some anonymous whistleblower accounts. The rest is just a list of grievances, everything from Pegasus and Cambridge Analytica to the negative impact of Instagram on teenage mental health, and how Meta is always under fire for everything under the sun, so E2EE is obviously fake too
Personally i really wouldnt discount it just yet. It’s very recent, so new information is bound to come up. This is only a complaint, and complaints lay out the claims, not the evidence. I think pre-trial are where evidence is gathered and stuff. Maybe during this phase, subpoenas/requests for production can be served to obtain evidence of the claim, etc. But as of right now, it’s only a legal complaint where the plaintiffs are demanding a jury trial.
I do think there’s something to be said for 9 attorneys attaching their names to this. That would be a pretty large waste of money (even for a class action, the lawyers are spending their time on this instead of something else they could potentially be getting paid for) and risky for their legal licenses if they filed this despite knowing they had nothing behind it. However, that’s not evidence itself, it at best is an indicator that it might be worth keeping an eye on this for any evidence that does come from it.
At this early stage, with the limited information provided, this is my main takeaway too: serious lawyers seem to back this case. The first firm listed (URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP) is a large law practice. They have nothing to gain & much reputation to lose by accepting a frivolous case that gets thrown out before trial
Yikes kinda divisive
do wanna give a shoutout to some people who actually got me into speed without the article.
Honestly I can see the confusion with section 37, 38 and 39, impying some kind of backdoor action is happening
sure their encryption itself may not be backdoored but some implication is there and honestly only one way to find out is around the end of the trial, because as others said, it is likely not the encryption itself (and we doubt it is as it seems the lawsuit implies using different means so we will see overall)
Safe to say that internally at WhatsApp things have been, oof, very loose lately, I think there was a similar situation before it and now this. But this kind of like “loose” actions is settng a dangerous precedent for whatsapp.
And this is exactly why I will never give in to apps like viber and whatsapp but that’s besides the point.
Are discussing legal burden of proof, and WhatsApp is not (yet) proven to have deceived everyone w.r.t. encryption.
Want to see evidence before spreading allegations that WhatsApp’s encryption provides no confidentiality, for instance, telling WhatsApp users that WhatsApp’s encryption is compromised.
Is the above correct or am I misinterpreting?
I would never use WhatsApp, at least not willingly, and I have told people WhatsApp is unsafe, saying that Meta is a surveillance company and WhatsApp is closed source, but will not (yet) tell others WhatsApp’s encryption is compromised.
Isn’t the point of the lawsuit is to bring WhatsApp internals/tech details into public view? The lawsuit forces WhatsApp to prove its claims about E2EE, the next step is getting those out of the courtroom and onto GitHub and into newspapers.
There hasn’t been that major of an update as of yet, but there has been some progress since 2/04/2026. Here is a docket of the case from PaceMonitor:
Some non-major but relevant points in the legal timeline as of 4/10/2026:
Friday, March 27, 2026
Meta (defendant) files a motion to dismiss the case (#29). I unfortunately don’t have the PDF document because PacerMonitor requires a subscription, so I’m not aware of what arguments they’re making for the dismissal.
The plaintiffs must file a response to that motion (argue why the case should not be dismissed) by 4/10/2026 (which is today!!!).
The defendant must file a reply to that response (argue why the plaintiff’s response does not hold, but can’t make any new arguments outside of what was given in the original motion to dismiss) by 4/17/2026.
The hearing will take place on 6/2/2026 to determine whether the motion to dismiss is granted or denied.
Monday, March 30, 2026
Judge Lin—the judge to preside over the case—cancels the date of the hearing (“Pursuant to Judge Lin’s Standing Order for Civil Cases”, which can be found here) (#32). This does not mean the motion to dismiss has been granted or denied.
The current dates for the “Joint Case Management Statement” (4/15/2026) and “Initial Case Management Conference” (4/22/2026) are cancelled, and a new date will be given only after the motion to dismiss is resolved (#33).
Thursday, April 02, 2026
Stipulation (#34): Both the plaintiff and defendant agree to extend the due dates for their response and reply, respectively. There is a PDF document associated with this stipulation, but again I do not have access to it so I’m not aware of the reasons they provide.
Friday, April 03, 2026
Judge Lin grants the stipulation (#36).
New response due date: 4/24/2026.
New reply due date: 5/15/2026.
I’m not fully sure what “Joint Case Management Statement” and “Initial Case Management Conference” entails. It seems to be about setting a schedule for the case. Timelines and deadlines are given for hearings, trials, discovery of evidence, etc. Meta’s motion to dismiss basically halted these two things. No timeline for the case can be established until Meta’s motion to dismiss is resolved (#33).
Unfortunately, there is currently no hearing date set for the motion. This means that the motion will remain unresolved, and no dates (like for discovery) can be set for the case management. I wonder how this will affect the overall evidence-gathering throughout the case. Hopefully someone in the field can weigh in on this. It would also be beneficial if someone could provide access to the PDF documents for the motion (#29) and stipulation (#34).
As of right now, no evidence has been obtained, so the claims of the plaintiffs still only amount to allegations. I urge others to keep an eye out on this case.
